The New York State Supreme Court judge who imposed a temporary restraining order preventing East Hampton Town from closing its airport and reopening it with restrictions imposed on flight activity, and later held the town in civil contempt for violating that order, ruled last week that the town must pay almost $178,000 in two plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees within 30 days.
He ordered a third plaintiff’s attorneys, who had claimed an additional $116,621.50 in fees, to provide detailed billing records for an inspection, outside the presence of the litigants or third parties, next Thursday.
Justice Paul Baisley Jr., who upended the town’s plan to reduce traffic to and from the airport in response to many weary residents’ complaints about incessant aircraft noise and particularly that of jets and helicopters, held the town in civil contempt on May 19 for violating the temporary restraining order he had issued one year earlier. In that ruling, he ordered the town to pay the plaintiffs $250,000, imposed a fine of $1,000 per day “for each day it fails to comply with the T.R.O. from the date of this order,” and ordered the town to pay the plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees for costs associated with the contempt motions. The town appealed the decision.
The plaintiffs had contended that the town violated the T.R.O. by enforcing several new use restrictions for the airport, in part by requiring “planes and helicopters to power down completely before loading and unloading passengers and cargo resulting in cooling-down periods of up to 20-30 minutes before reignition can take place, which effectively doubles the amount of time that aircraft must remain grounded between flights.”
They also maintain that the town intends to close the airport permanently rather than permit it to operate without use restrictions.
Attorneys for the three plaintiffs — Blade Air Mobility, East End Hangars, and the Coalition to Keep East Hampton Airport Open — subsequently told the State Supreme Court that they calculated nearly $295,000 in fees associated with the May motion holding the town in civil contempt.
In his Aug. 15 ruling, Justice Baisley ordered that the Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman firm, attorneys for East End Hangars, be paid $157,618, and that the Greenberg Traurig firm, representing the Coalition to Keep East Hampton Airport Open, be paid $20,100. The attorneys had submitted those sums based on 163.7 and 26.8 hours of time, respectively.
The town, according to a statement issued from Supervisor Peter Van Scoyoc’s office on Tuesday, will appeal this ruling.
The Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher firm, attorneys for Blade Air Mobility, requested an award of $116,621.50 for an unspecified amount of time billed at rates ranging from approximately $700 per hour to approximately $1,800 per hour.
Last month, attorneys representing the town submitted a memorandum in opposition to the plaintiffs’ attorneys’ calculation of nearly $295,000 in fees, calling them “insufficiently supported, excessive, and/or otherwise unreasonable.”
In their July 19 memorandum, John Henry and Christopher McDonald of the Whiteman Osterman & Hanna firm argued that all three attorneys’ fee applications should be rejected. The Blade petitioners’ request was “for an unspecified amount of time billed at unidentified rates,” they wrote. It “should be rejected out of hand because its conclusory assertions and complete lack of factual detail do not come close to satisfying the well-settled requirements for establishing the reasonableness of claimed attorney’s fees.”
While the East End Hangars application provides information, they wrote, that information “demonstrates beyond question that the fees sought are excessive and unreasonable, both as to the hourly rates charged and the hours billed,” citing James Catterson’s hourly fee referenced in his affirmation, $1,350 per hour. The Coalition to Keep East Hampton Airport Open’s fee application “should be denied because the underlying finding of civil contempt — which the town is appealing to the Second Department — was erroneous,” they wrote.
In his most recent ruling, Justice Baisley was brief in his remarks. In assessing a “reasonable attorney’s fee,” he wrote that factors to be considered include the time and labor required, difficulty of questions involved, and skill required to handle the problems presented; the lawyer’s experience, ability, and reputation; the amount involved and benefit resulting to the client from the services; the customary fee charged for similar services; the contingency or certainty of compensation; the results obtained, and the responsibility involved.
Citing precedent, he wrote, “The ‘amount actually paid to counsel by paying clients is compelling evidence of a reasonable market rate.’ “
Also citing precedent, he wrote that, while a law firm is not required to produce contemporaneously maintained time records, “ ‘the court will usually, and especially in a matter involving a large fee, be presented with an objective and detailed breakdown by the attorney of the time and labor expended, together with other factors he or she feels supports the fee requested.’ “
Accordingly, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher must provide detailed billing records for next week’s inspection.
In a statement provided to The Star, Mr. Catterson called the court’s order awarding attorneys’ fees to the plaintiffs “yet another stark reminder that the town board is not above the law and must, like all litigants, obey the orders of the court. This is true whether the board members agree with those orders or not. By now, it should be apparent to everyone in the town that the board’s brazen and continued disregard for court orders is unmatched by any other municipality in the State of New York and that there is a cost to be paid for the town’s continuing contempt.”
Tuesday’s statement from Mr. Van Scoyoc’s office called the ruling “unsurprising.” The town’s outside counsel “is challenging the underlying contempt finding on appeal, and the town disagrees that any fees are owed.”
The statement also notes that the town received some good news last week: On Friday, the Supreme Court Appellate Division’s Second Department granted the town’s request to “expedite its appeals of the permanent injunction that is constraining the town from taking actions that could provide the community with relief from aircraft noise and environmental impacts, as well as of an associated contempt order.”
